Why didn't Hunchback of Notre Dame make it to Broadway?

[HopesS]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:08am

I am so confused

[hork]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:10am

Because he couldn't sing and died long before Broadway was a thing.

[whatdoesntkillme]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:42am

It was never written with the goal of Broadway in mind. It was created to be licensed to regional theaters and community/school groups. 

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 4:44am

I saw it in La Jolla, and while I loved it -- but I'm biased because I'm a big fan of the score -- the show clearly had some issues that didn't get resolved based on reports I read from Papermill. My main issues were the huge amount of narration and characters telling us the story instead of acting it out. And I thought it should be retitled to Frollo of Norte Dame because the show told more about Frollo than Quasi. Patrick Page was great, and I found myself more interested in his arc and struggles than in Quasi who really doesn't grow much (yes he gets out of the tower and eventually stands up to Frollo). 

As for it not going to Broadway I'm sure the darker tone and narrative, which follows the novel more closely than the animated film, particularly the darker ending, was problematic for Disney. While I don't think there is anything that would really negatively effect a kid seeing it, I just think most of the sexual undertones would be lost on kids. I much preferred the darker version to the film's happy ending but can see Disney having a difficult time marketing it. 

[kreichelt]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 6:49am

I saw it in Ogunquit, and thought it was fabulous.  From what I hear the problem with a Broadway transfer was the huge chorus (32 members) that the show requires.  The chorus is essential to the score, but also expensive to maintain.

[nycgogetter]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 9:03am

1) it was never developed for Broadway.

2) the cost of the 32 person choir on top of the cast would make it very hard to recoup, and Disney keeps an eye on the bottom line.

3) Concerns over the heavy and dark tones of the piece.

4) Disney is always worried about three shows running at the same time under the Disney banner (it will be interesting to see Aladdin/Frozen/Lion King playing at the same time)

The show will continue to have a life outside of Broadway, in regional theaters were several successful productions have played.  And outside of the US, where the Disney and the dark tones do not necessarily conflict like the do in America.  Tokyo production is pending, rumored (multiple) productions in Europe, and possibly Australia.

[little_sally]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 9:31am

While I thought there were plenty of problems with the book and direction, the main problem for me was that it was way too dark. I also wasn't sure who the target audience was since I could never imagine small children wanting to see it/sitting through it.

[kreichelt]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 9:39am

4) plus Anastasia

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 9:45am

Anastasia isn't a Disney Property

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 10:04am

Sacramento's Music Circus produced it this last August (with Lesli Margherita as Esmeralda). Looking at the promotional videos, it looked like their choir was 12 people. I imagine in a smaller house a smaller choir would be fine. But B'way would need the full choir. 

[kreichelt]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 10:20am

Alex Kulak2 said: "Anastasia isn't a Disney Property"

Ah, yes, you're right -- it's Twentieth Century Fox.  I thought Disney had acquired it.  Still, it will compete in that same market...   That's a lot of family friendly shows...   

But back to Hunchback, totally different audience.  This production, as you noted, it's much darker, not just the storyline, but also the music.  It's really not for kids.  It is a shame it didn't transfer.  

 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 10:24am

Throwing out a book by James Lapine that was closer to the film while still being dark enough to be a mature treatment, to me, was one big mistake.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:23pm

Although it was never officially aimed for Broadway ...unofficially, yeah, it totally was. 

To add to what others have said, it is one of those shows that has a great score and a problematic book. I also think that the metatheatre stuff came across as mostly self-important and pretentious.

It will have a nice regional life.

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:28pm

The Distinctive Baritone said: "Although it was never officially aimed for Broadway ...unofficially, yeah, it totally was. 

Wasn't the same true for another Menken vehicle, NEWSIES? Publicly they said it was just for Papermill and to get it set for regional, but it had a good run in NYC when it transferred. 

 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:42pm

It would always be a tough Broadway sell, but there was hope. And intention. (Huge respect for Michael Arden after the Spring Awakening revival, but anyone remember that Twitter meltdown when he found out Hunchback wouldn't transfer? He actually said that all his work had been for nothing.)

 

The Papermill production was a creative disaster brought down by nepotism and incompetence. The score was glorious. The cast was very good. The direction was truly jaw-dropping in its pretention, lack of excitement, and dearth of creative vision. The new book, affixed to the dreary Passion Play concept, was an immeasurable step back from what James Lapine had put together for the German run. Tone has always been tricky for Hunchback, so it was a bizarre choice to make the content darker while deploying the story with a device that felt like local children's theatre.

 

Surely some of the regional productions since have been better, but it is a shame that this is the final licensed version of Hunchback. 

Updated On: 10/13/16 at 02:42 PM

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 2:48pm

It had every intention of transferring. Unfortunately no one wanted to admit the blantant nepotism going on with Scott Schwartz. Horrible HORRIBLE direction. It killed it and it's truly a shame. 

[nycgogetter]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 6:41pm

broadwayboy223 - if it did have "ever intention of transferring" it was not by Disney.  Unless outside producers were going to swoop it up.  AEA was not going to budge on putting the choir of full AEA contracts driving the cost up.  What ever one hope, versus what was in the works was very different.

 

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 9:35pm

It was totally "looking" to transfer to Broadway and it should have, it was terrific.  DISNEY was trying to convince EQUITY to allow the (large) singing chorus to be on special contract (much like the JOSEPH revival, many years ago). When EQUITY refused the powers at DISNEY  decided it was indeed "too dark" to take a chance. The feeling was it could not be sold to the usual DISNEY audience and therefore a "risk". This, I have heard, is the reason given to the cast who totally were looking to transfer.  

[sephyr]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 9:48pm

I did enjoy the show as a whole. It was a nice time at the theater. However I think the lack of the three gargoyle trio kind of took it down a few steps for me. They provided the comic relief and a bit of heart as well, By having a gargoyle "choir" it made it less personal for Quazi and that close relationship was lost. I also felt like the end and all was sort of anticlimactic. These are fixable solutions and they could improve on it if they wanted to.

[RemlapLBC]

Posted: 10/13/16 at 10:33pm

While I am very glad to have seen it in La Jolla, I was also glad to have seen it at La Jolla prices and not Broadway pricing.  The score is fantastic.  Some of the creative choices were just odd.  And just like Aladdin in Seattle and Newsies at the Papermill were not "officially pre-Broadway;" based on comments from some of the cast, the intent was (or at least the hope was) to transfer.

The chorus sounded fantastic, however, if Equity was saying they all would need to be on a the full production contract on Broadway, it's easy to see why Disney balked and turned it over to regional theatres.

 

 

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 10/14/16 at 12:02am

Equity preventing its members from working because of ridiculous, unaffordable demands? That never happens.

[darquegk]

Posted: 10/14/16 at 1:37pm

Also, for reasons that I cannot entirely grasp, Stephen Schwartz likes story-theatre as a format. This version of Hunchback uses it, Pippin uses it, Godspell uses it, Children of Eden uses it... wasn't the original draft of "Wicked" much more narrated and meta-theatrical?

 

It's his thing, and nobody else really gets the appeal but him. Like Tarantino with movie referentiality and Ryan Murphy with men's butts and women's armpits, if you get Schwartz you're gonna get story theatre.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/14/16 at 1:41pm

That's a good observation.

 

I love story theatre, but nearly always find it very awkward in a full-on musical. You can't get that Nickleby/Peter and the Starcatcher let's-make-believe charm with something so big, or something that relies on an entire other way of storytelling throughout. It just feels cheap. And redundant and cloying, at least in the cases of Eden and Hunchback.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/14/16 at 2:01pm

However, Fiasco's INTO THE WOODS was quite a charmer...but the straight story theatre elements were in the staging; the book was not adjusted, 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/15/16 at 5:03am

sephyr said: "I did enjoy the show as a whole. It was a nice time at the theater. However I think the lack of the three gargoyle trio kind of took it down a few steps for me. They provided the comic relief and a bit of heart as well, By having a gargoyle "choir" it made it less personal for Quazi and that close relationship was lost. I also felt like the end and all was sort of anticlimactic. These are fixable solutions and they could improve on it if they wanted to."

Oh my God THANK YOU! Literally no one else gets this. "They're too wacky!" "Pointlessly added for the kiddies!" "Disney just shoehorned them in so they could own a distinguishing element of the piece and sell some toys!" Number one, aside from some of their theater ventures, no one could ever accuse Disney of being bad at business; they saw an opportunity and they took it. Number two, in a story that's very heavy like this, one needs comic relief. And the worst part of losing Lapine's book is that he already fixed the tonal issue.

He altered their names, made them less wacky, and shaped them into playing a much more integral role in the story than just comic relief. Lapine's book and staging (in addition to talking to Quasimodo and bantering between themselves, they freely moved around when other characters were in the scene) more than subtly implied that they are figments of Quasimodo's imagination that he invented to help him cope with his loneliness, and, taking it a step further, that they represent the three areas of his subconscious: Victor (Charles in the Berlin stage version) is the sensible side, Hugo (Antoine in the stage version) is his impulsive side, and Laverne (Loni in the stage version) tries to make Quasimodo think for himself.

Besides, when people come right down to it, the truth is that they could live with toned-down versions of the gargoyles; they're just projecting their hatred of "A Guy Like You" onto these characters. And on film, I get it -- a musical number like "A Guy Like You" is totally out of place, coming as it does around the darkest point in the film. But the Berlin version made it work onstage for the same reason that "I Feel Pretty" works in Act Two of West Side Story where it might not have on film: on stage, it's one of the few bright spots in the show at that time, and it's far from totally inappropriate. I get not liking the lyrics (yes, the line about Paris being on fire is cringeworthy), but if anyone on this forum who isn't a Wicked fanatic can name the last new Stephen Schwartz lyric they completely liked, I'll let it go.

Don't worry, I'll wait.

Updated On: 10/15/16 at 05:03 AM